Darwinians have no explanation for origin of life; we do

By Bryan Fischer

Follow me on Twitter: @BryanJFischer, on Facebook at "Focal Point"

NBC News breathlessly headlines a piece on its website today, "Theorists are pumped up about their new origin of life proposal."

What does this headline prove? That scientists still to this day have no earthly idea how life got here. None. Zip. Nada. All they have are fanciful theories.

At the bottom of this particular article, the editors helpfully link to another article entitled, "7 Theories on the Origin of Life," which hammers home my point. They're clueless. The seven theories include primordial soup, electric sparks, community clay, deep-sea vents, ocean ice, and extra-terrestrials.

Extraterrestrials. I kid you not. Even Sir Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double-helical structure of DNA, believed in what I call the "Sperm in a Spaceship" theory, that aliens from another planet sent a rocket-ship from outer space to earth containing the spores that seeded the earth.

Richard Dawkins, who fancies himself the smartest man in the world and thinks that people who believe in God are "infantile," promotes the Area 51 theory. He even told Ben Stein that very thing in a scene toward the end of his documentary, "Expelled."

This latest theory blathers on about "primordial life-forms" leaving deep-sea vents because of their "'invention' of a tiny pump." These hypothetical "cellular pumps would have power powered life-giving chemical reactions."

The writers, you will note, even put the word "invention" in quotation marks, because everybody knows that inventions require both intelligence and design, the two things that doctrinaire Darwinians can never admit have anything to do with the origin of anything, let alone life.

These imaginary processes "created a gradient in positively charged protons that served as a 'battery' to fuel the creation of organic molecules and proto-cells." Hey, wait a minute. Where did all those protons come from? Where did the "alkaline fluid" in these deep sea vents come from? Where did the "negatively charged hydroxide ions" come from? Where did the "existing archaea bacteria" come from? For that matter, where did the ocean crust come from? Where did the oceans come from? Where did the earth come from?

If evolutionists think we are going to spot them protons, alkaline fluid, ions, archaea bacteria, ocean crusts, oceans, and the earth, let alone the universe, they've got another think coming. Even if this fantastical theory were true, it's useless until evolutionists explain the origin of the building blocks they apparently assume just magically appeared.

Besides which, even this theory is advanced with a maximum amount of tentativeness and uncertainty. The article is shot through with phrases such as "would have powered," "may have played a major role," "could have provided," "scientists think," "could have provided," "proposed," and "would have." This is hardly a sound scientific platform on which to stand.

And the problem is that scientific advances are making Darwinism even more ludicrous than it was when it was first proposed.

In the 10th anniversary edition of his book, "Darwin's Black Box," Michael J. Behe, a biochemist and Professor of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University, said, "[A]s science advances relentlessly, the molecular foundation of life is not getting any less complex than it seemed a decade ago; it is getting exponentially more complex. As it does, the case for intelligent design of life becomes exponentially stronger."

In other words, the more science discovers about the molecular complexity of life, the less likely any theory based on the random collision of atoms becomes.

In his book Scientific Creationism (pp. 60-62), Dr. Henry Morris refers to NASA-sponsored research designed to enable astronauts to recognize even the most rudimentary forms of life. The simplest type of protein molecule that could be said to be "living" is composed of at least 400 linked amino acids, each one of them a specific combination of four or five basic chemical elements (carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen primarily), with each chemical element in turn being a unique arrangement of protons, electrons and neutrons.

Morris points out that getting an organism composed just of 100 integrated parts, let alone 400, through the random collision of atoms would require 10158 different couplings in order to ensure a successful linkage, since there are 10158 different ways for 100 parts to link up.

Now, as Morris explains, there are only 1080 electrons in the entire universe. He assumes, just for the sake of argument, that this represents the number of particles available to serve as components in this 100-part organism.

Now astronomers say the universe is 30 billion years old. If a billion trials a second, involving the linking, unlinking and relinking of these parts, had been taking place for 30 billion years (there are 1018 seconds in 30 billion years) that would be 10105 trials. But since it takes 10158 couplings to ensure a working combination, the chances of a getting a combination that would work in this scenario is 1 in 1053 (10158/10105), which is an infinitesimally small number.

It should be noted that 1053 is a "one" followed by 53 zeroes. As Morris says, this represents "one chance out of a hundred million billion billion billion billion billion." He adds, "For all practical purposes, there is no chance at all!"

We can go with the "Sperm in a Spaceship" theory or we can go with Genesis 1 and 2, where we are told that God spoke and the waters swarmed with "living creatures," God spoke and the land was covered with "living creatures," and God formed man, breathed into him, and he became "a living creature."

If the choice is between ET and God, I'm going with God. That's a no-brainer, even for one as "infantile" as myself.

(Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the author's and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Family Association or American Family Radio.)

© Bryan Fischer